Antedating of "Double Jeopardy"

[Baker, John]

        <<The constitution of Ohio contains a like prohibition against a double prosecution and double punishment; and yet, if the doctrine of the defendant in error be sustained, the plaintiff in error is liable, notwithstanding this double guarantee, to be twice prosecuted, twice convicted, and twice punished, for the same offence. These great constitutional provisions become a mere mockery. There is no escape from the alternative presented, between divesting the judicial, legislative, and executive departments of the federal government of their constitutional powers, and the double jeopardy and punishment, except to held that the cognizance of the offence is exclusively vested in the general government.  It is suggested by the counsel for the defendant in error that the protection against the double jeopardy does not apply to this case, where the punishment is imprisonment only . . . .>>

Fox v. State of Ohio, 46 U.S. 410, 431 (1847) (argument of plaintiff in error).


John Baker